Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

At the time of the Reformation, many hoped Martin Luther and Erasmus could unite against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther himself was tempted to unite with Erasmus because Erasmus was a great Renaissance scholar who studied the classics and the Greek New Testament. Examining the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus was infuriated with the abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, especially those of the clergy. These abuses are vividly described in the satire of his book, The Praise of Folly. Erasmus called for reform in the Roman Catholic Church. Erasmus could have been a great help to the Reformation, so it seemed, by using the Renaissance in the service of the Reformation.

But a great chasm separated these two men. Luther loved the truth of God's Word as that was revealed to him through his own struggles with the assurance of salvation. Therefore Luther wanted true reformation in the church, which would be a reformation in doctrine and practice. Erasmus cared little about a right knowledge of truth. He simply wanted moral reform in the Roman Catholic Church. He did not want to leave the church, but remained supportive of the Pope.

This fundamental difference points out another difference between the two men. Martin Luther was bound by the Word of God. Therefore the content of the Scripture was of utmost importance to him. But Erasmus did not hold to this same high view of Scripture. Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.

The two men could not have fellowship with each other, for the two movements which they represented were antithetical to each other. The fundamental differences came out especially in the debate over the freedom of the will.

From 1517 on, the chasm between Luther and Erasmus grew. The more Luther learned about Erasmus, the less he wanted anything to do with him. Melanchthon tried to play the mediator between Luther and Erasmus with no success. But many hated Erasmus because he was so outspoken against the church. These haters of Erasmus tried to discredit him by associating him with Luther, who was outside the church by this time. Erasmus continued to deny this unity, saying he did not know much about the writings of Luther. But as Luther took a stronger stand against the doctrinal abuses of Rome, Erasmus was forced either to agree with Luther or to dissociate himself from Luther. Erasmus chose the latter.

Many factors came together which finally caused Erasmus to wield his pen against Luther. Erasmus was under constant pressure from the Pope and later the king of England to refute the views of Luther. When Luther became more outspoken against Erasmus, Erasmus finally decided to write against him. On September 1, 1524, Erasmus published his treatise On the Freedom of the Will. In December of 1525, Luther responded with The Bondage of the Will.

Packer and Johnston call The Bondage of the Will "the greatest piece of theological writing that ever came from Luther's pen."1 Although Erasmus writes with eloquence, his writing cannot compare with that of Luther the theologian. Erasmus writes as one who cares little about the subject, while Luther writes with passion and conviction, giving glory to God. In his work, Luther defends the heart of the gospel over against the Pelagian error as defended by Erasmus. This controversy is of utmost importance.

In this paper, I will summarize both sides of the controversy, looking at what each taught and defended. Secondly, I will examine the biblical approach of each man. Finally, the main issues will be pointed out and the implications of the controversy will be drawn out for the church today.

Erasmus defines free-will or free choice as "a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation or turn away from them." By this, Erasmus means that man has voluntary or free power of himself to choose the way which leads to salvation apart from the grace of God.

Erasmus attempts to answer the question how man is saved: Is it the work of God or the work of man according to his free will? Erasmus answers that it is not one or the other. Salvation does not have to be one or the other, for God and man cooperate. On the one hand, Erasmus defines free-will, saying man can choose freely by himself, but on the other hand, he wants to retain the necessity of grace for salvation. Those who do good works by free-will do not attain the end they desire unless aided by God's grace. Therefore, in regard to salvation, man cooperates with God. Both must play their part in order for a man to be saved. Erasmus expresses it this way: "Those who support free choice nonetheless admit that a soul which is obstinate in evil cannot be softened into true repentance without the help of heavenly grace." Also, attributing all things to divine grace, Erasmus states,

And the upshot of it is that we should not arrogate anything to ourselves but attribute all things we have received to divine grace … that our will might be synergos (fellow-worker) with grace although grace is itself sufficient for all things and has no need of the assistance of any human will."

In his work On the Freedom of the Will, Erasmus defends this synergistic view of salvation. According to Erasmus, God and man, nature and grace, cooperate together in the salvation of a man. With this view of salvation, Erasmus tries to steer clear of outright Pelagianism and denies the necessity of human action which Martin Luther defends.

On the basis of an apocryphal passage (Ecclesiasticas 15:14-17), Erasmus begins his defense with the origin of free-will. Erasmus says that Adam, as he was created, had a free-will to choose good or to turn to evil. In Paradise, man's will was free and upright to choose. Adam did not depend upon the grace of God, but chose to do all things voluntarily. The question which follows is, "What happened to the will when Adam sinned; does man still retain this free-will?" Erasmus would answer, "Yes." Erasmus says that the will is born out of a man's reason. In the fall, man's reason was obscured but was not extinguished. Therefore the will, by which we choose, is depraved so that it cannot change its ways. The will serves sin. But this is qualified. Man's ability to choose freely or voluntarily is not hindered.

By this depravity of the will, Erasmus does not mean that man can do no good. Because of the fall, the will is "inclined" to evil, but can still do good. Notice, he says the will is only "inclined" to evil. Therefore the will can freely or voluntarily choose between good and evil. This is what he says in his definition: free-will is "a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation." Not only does the human will have power, although a little power, but the will has power by which a man merits salvation.

This free choice of man is necessary according to Erasmus in order for there to be sin. In order for a man to be guilty of sin, he must be able to know the difference between good and evil, and he must be able to choose between doing good and doing evil. A man is responsible only if he has the ability to choose good or evil. If the free-will of man is taken away, Erasmus says that man ceases to be a man.

For this freedom of the will, Erasmus claims to find much support in Scripture. According to Erasmus, when Scripture speaks of "choosing," it implies that man can freely choose. Also, whenever the Scripture uses commands, threats, exhortations, blessings, and cursings, it follows that man is capable of choosing whether or not he will obey.

Erasmus defines the work of man's will by which he can freely choose after the fall. Here he makes distinctions in his idea of a "threefold kind of law" which is made up of the "law of nature, law of works, and law of faith." First, this law of nature is in all men. By this law of nature, men do good by doing to others what they would want others to do to them. Having this law of nature, all men have a knowledge of God. By this law of nature, the will can choose good, but the will in this condition is useless for salvation. Therefore more is needed. The law of works is man's choice when he hears the threats of punishment which God gives. When a man hears these threats, he either continues to forsake God, or he desires God's grace. When a man desires God's grace, he then receives the law of faith which cures the sinful inclinations of his reason. A man has this law of faith only by divine grace.

In connection with this threefold kind of law, Erasmus distinguishes between three graces of God. First, in all men, even in those who remain in sin, a grace is implanted by God. But this grace is infected by sin. This grace arouses men by a certain knowledge of God to seek Him. The second grace is peculiar grace which arouses the sinner to repent. This does not involve the abolishing of sin or justification. But rather, a man becomes "a candidate for the highest grace." By this grace offered to all men, God invites all, and the sinner must come desiring God's grace. This grace helps the will to desire God. The final grace is the concluding grace which completes what was started. This is saving grace only for those who come by their free-will. Man begins on the path to salvation, after which God completes what man started. Along with man's natural abilities according to his will, God works by His grace. This is the synergos, or cooperation, which Erasmus defends.

Erasmus defends the free-will of man with a view to meriting salvation. This brings us to the heart of the matter. Erasmus begins with the premise that a man merits salvation. In order for a man to merit salvation, he cannot be completely carried by God, but he must have a free-will by which he chooses God voluntarily. Therefore, Erasmus concludes that by the exercise of his free-will, man merits salvation with God. When man obeys, God imputes this to his merit. Therefore Erasmus says, "This surely goes to show that it is not wrong to say that man does something…." Concerning the merit of man's works, Erasmus distinguishes with the Scholastics between congruent and condign merit. The former is that which a man performs by his own strength, making him a "fit subject for the gift of internal grace." This work of man removed the barrier which keeps God from giving grace. The barrier removed is man's unworthiness for grace, which God gives only to those who are fit for it. With the gift of grace, man can do works which before he could not do. God rewards these gifts with salvation. Therefore, with the help or aid of the grace of God, a man merits eternal salvation.

Although he says a man merits salvation, Erasmus wants to say that salvation is by God's grace. In order to hold both the free-will of man and the grace of God in salvation, Erasmus tries to show the two are not opposed to each other. He says, "It is not wrong to say that man does something yet attributes the sum of all he does to God as the author." Explaining the relationship between grace and free-will, Erasmus says that the grace of God and the free-will of man, as two causes, come together in one action "in such a way, however, that grace is the principle cause and the will secondary, which can do nothing apart from the principle cause since the principle is sufficient in itself." Therefore, in regard to salvation, God and man work together. Man has a free-will, but this will cannot attain salvation of itself. The will needs a boost from grace in order to merit eternal life.

Erasmus uses many pictures to describe the relationship between works and grace. He calls grace an "advisor," "helper," and "architect." Just as the builder of a house needs the architect to show him what to do and to set him straight when he does something wrong, so also man needs the assistance of God to help him where he is lacking. The free-will of man is aided by a necessary helper: grace. Therefore Erasmus says, "as we show a boy an apple and he runs for it ... so God knocks at our soul with His grace and we willingly embrace it." In this example, we are like a boy who cannot walk. The boy wants the apple, but he needs his father to assist him in obtaining the apple. So also, we need the assistance of God's grace. Man has a free-will by which he can seek after God, but this is not enough for him to merit salvation. By embracing God's grace with his free-will, man merits God's grace so that by his free-will and the help of God's grace he merits eternal life. This is a summary of what Erasmus defends.

Erasmus also deals with the relationship of God's foreknowledge and man's free-will. On the one hand, God does what he wills, but, on the other hand, God's will does not impose anything on man's will, for then man's will would not be free or voluntary. Therefore God's foreknowledge is not determinative, but He simply knows what man will choose. Men deserve punishment from eternity simply because God knows they will not choose the good, but will choose the evil. Man can resist the ordained will of God. The only thing man cannot resist is when God wills in miracles. When God performs some "supernatural" work, this cannot be resisted by men. For example, when Jesus performed a miracle, the man whose sight returned could not refuse to be healed. According to Erasmus, because man's will is free, God's will and foreknowledge depend on man's will except when He performs miracles.

This is a summary of what Erasmus taught in his treatise On the Freedom of the Will. In response to this treatise, Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will. We turn to this book of Luther.

Martin Luther gives a thorough defense of the sovereign grace of God over against the "semi-Pelagianism" of Erasmus by going through much of Erasmus' On the Freedom of the Will phrase by phrase. Against the cooperating work of salvation defended by Erasmus, Luther attacks Erasmus at the very heart of the issue. Luther's thesis is that "free-will is a nonentity, a thing consisting of name alone" because man is a slave to sin. Therefore salvation is the sovereign work of God alone.

In the "Diatribe," Luther says, Erasmus makes no sense. It seems Erasmus speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says that man's will cannot will any good, yet on the other hand, he says man has a free-will. Other contradictions also exist in Erasmus' thought. Erasmus says that man has the power to choose good, but he also says that man needs grace to do good. Opposing Erasmus, Luther rightly points out that if there is free-will, there is no need for grace. Because of these contradictions in Erasmus, Luther says Erasmus "argues like a man drunk or asleep, blurting out between snores, 'Yes,' 'No.' " Not only does this view of Erasmus not make sense, but this is not what Scripture says concerning the will of man and the grace of God.

According to Luther, Erasmus does not prove his point, namely, the idea that man with his free-will cooperates in salvation with God. Throughout his work, Luther shows that Erasmus supports and agrees with the Pelagians. In fact, Erasmus' view is more despicable than Pelagianism because he is not honest and because the grace of God is cheapened. Only a small work is needed in order for a man to merit the grace of God.

Because Erasmus does not take up the question of what man can actually do of himself as fallen in Adam, Luther takes up the question of the ability of man. Here, Luther comes to the heart of his critique of the Diatribe in which he denies free-will and shows that God must be and is sovereign in salvation. Luther's arguments follow two lines: first, he shows that man is enslaved to sin and does not have a free-will; secondly, he shows that the truth of God's sovereign rule, by which He accomplishes His will according to His counsel, is opposed to free-will.

First, Luther successfully defends the thesis that there is no such entity as free-will because the will is enslaved to sin. Luther often says there is no such thing as free-will. The will of man without the grace of God "is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil since it cannot turn itself to good." The free-will lost its freedom in the fall so that now the will is a slave to sin. This means the will can will no good. Therefore man does and wills sin "necessarily." Luther further describes the condition of man's will when he explains a passage from Ezekiel: "It cannot but fall into a worse condition, and add to its sins despair and impenitence unless God comes straightway to its help and calls it back and raises it up by the word of His promise."

Luther makes a crucial distinction in explaining what he means when he says man sins "necessarily." This does not mean "compulsion." A man without the Spirit is not forced, kicking and screaming, to sin but voluntarily does evil. Nevertheless, because man is enslaved to sin, his will cannot change itself. He only wills or chooses to sin of himself. He cannot change this willingness of his: he wills and desires evil. Man is wholly evil, thinking nothing but evil thoughts. Therefore there is no free-will.

Because this is the condition of man, he cannot merit eternal life. The enslaved will cannot merit anything with God because it can do no good. The only thing which man deserves is eternal punishment. By this, Luther also shows that there is no free-will.

In connection with man's merit, Luther describes the true biblical uses of the law. The purpose of the law of God is not to show men how they can merit salvation, but the law is given so that men might see their sinfulness and their own unworthiness. The law condemns the works of man, for when he judges himself according to the law, man sees that he can do no good. Therefore, he is driven to the cross. The law also serves as a guide for what the believer should do. But the law does not say anything about the ability of man to obey it.

Not only should the idea of free-will be rejected because man is enslaved to sin, but also because of who God is and the relationship between God and man. A man cannot act independently of God. Analyzing what Erasmus said, Luther says that God is not God, but He is an idol, because the freedom of man rules. Everything depends on man for salvation. Therefore man can merit salvation apart from God. A God that depends on man is not God.

Denying this horrible view of Erasmus, Luther proclaims the sovereignty of God in salvation. Because God is sovereign in all things and especially in salvation, there is no free-will.

Luther begins with the fact that God alone has a free-will. This means only God can will or not will the law, gospel, sin, and death. God does not act out of necessity, but freely. He alone is independent in all He decrees and does. Therefore man cannot have a free-will by which he acts independently of God, because God is immutable, omnipotent, and sovereign over all. Luther says that God is omnipotent, knowing all. Therefore we do nothing of ourselves. We can only act according to God's infallible, immutable counsel.

The great error of free-willism is that it ascribes divinity to man's free-will. God is not God anymore. If man has a free-will, this implies God is not omnipotent, controlling all of our actions. Free-will also implies that God makes mistakes and changes. Man must then fix the mistakes. Over against this, Luther says there can be no free-will because we are under the "mastery of God." We can do nothing apart from God by our own strength because we are enslaved to sin.

Luther also understands the difficulties which follow from saying that God is sovereign so that all things happen necessarily. Luther states: "If God foreknows a thing, it necessarily happens." The problem between God's foreknowledge and man's freedom cannot be completely solved. God sovereignly decrees all things that happen, and they happen as He has decreed them necessarily. Does this mean that when a man sins, he sins because God has decreed that sin? Luther would answer, Yes. But God does not act contrary to what man is. Man cannot will good, but he only seeks after sinful lusts. The nature of man is corrupted, so that he is turned from God. But God works in men and in Satan according to what they are. The sinner is still under the control of the omnipotent God, "which means, since they are evil and perverted themselves, that when they are impelled to action by this movement of Divine omnipotence they do only that which is perverted or evil." When God works in evil men, evil results. But God is not evil. He is good. He does not do evil, but He uses evil instruments. The sin is the fault of those evil instruments and not the fault of God.

Luther asks himself the question, Why then did God let Adam fall so all men have his sin? The sovereignty of God must not be questioned, because God's will is beyond any earthly standard. Nothing is equal to God and His will. Answering the question above, Luther replies, "What God wills is not right because He ought or was bound, so to will, on the contrary, what takes place must be right because He so wills it." This is the hidden mystery of God's absolute sovereignty over all things.

God is sovereign over all things. He is sovereign in salvation. Is salvation a work of God and man? Luther answers negatively. God alone saves. Therefore salvation cannot be based on the merits of men's works. Man's obedience does not obtain salvation, according to Luther. Some become the sons of God "not by carnal birth, nor by zeal for the law, nor by any other human effort, but only by being born of God." Grace does not come by our own effort, but by the grace of Jesus Christ. To deny grace is to deny Jesus Christ. For Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Free-will says that it is the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore free-will denies Jesus Christ. This is a serious error.

God saves by His grace and Spirit in such away that the will is turned by Him. Only when the will is changed can it will and desire the good. Luther describes a struggle between God and Satan. Erasmus says man stands between God and Satan, who are as spectators waiting for man to make his choice. But Luther compares this struggle to a horse having two riders. "If God rides, it wills and goes where God goes…. If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan goes." The horse does not have the choice of which rider it wants. We have Satan riding us until God throws him off. In the same way, we are enslaved to sin until God breaks the power of sin. The salvation of a man depends upon the free work of God, who alone is sovereign and able to save men. Therefore this work in the will by God is a radical change whereby the willing of the soul is freed from sin. This beautiful truth stands over against Erasmus' grace, which gives man a booster shot in what he can do of himself.

This truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation is comforting to us. When man trusts in himself, he has no comfort that he is saved. Because man is enslaved to sin and because God is the sovereign, controlling all things according to His sovereign, immutable will, there is no free-will. The free-will of man does not save him. God alone saves.

The battle begins with the fundamental difference separating Luther and Erasmus in regard to the doctrine of Scripture. Erasmus defends the obscurity of Scripture. Basically, Erasmus says man cannot know with certainty many of the things in Scripture. Some things in God's Word are plain, while many are not. He applies the obscurity of Scripture to the controversy concerning the freedom of the will. In the camp of the hidden things of God, which include the hour of our death and when the last judgment will occur, Erasmus places "whether our will accomplishes anything in things pertaining to salvation." Because Scripture is unclear about these things, what one believes about these matters is not important. Erasmus did not want controversy, but he wanted peace. For him, the discussion of the hidden things is worthless because it causes the church to lose her love and unity.

Against this idea of the obscurity of Scripture, Luther defends the perspicuity of Scripture. Luther defines perspicuity as being twofold. The external word itself is clear, as that which God has written for His people. But man cannot understand this word of himself. Therefore Scripture is clear to God's people only by the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

The authority of Scripture is found in God Himself. God's Word must not be measured by man, for this leads to paradoxes, of which Erasmus is a case in point. By saying Scripture is paradoxical, Erasmus denies the authority of God's Word.

Luther does not deny that some passages are difficult to understand. This is not because the Word is unclear or because the work of the Holy Spirit is weak. Rather, we do not understand some passages because of our own weakness.

If Scripture is obscure, then this opposes what God is doing in revelation. Scripture is light which reveals the truth. If it is obscure, then why did God give it to us? According to Luther, not even the difficult to understand doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the unpardonable sin are obscure. Therefore the issue of the freedom of the will is not obscure. If the Scripture is unclear about the doctrine of the will of man, then this doctrine is not from Scripture.

Because Scripture is clear, Luther strongly attacks Erasmus on this fundamental point. Luther says, "The Scriptures are perfectly clear in their teaching, and that by their help such a defense of our position may be made that our adversaries cannot resist." This is what Luther hoped to show to Erasmus. The teaching of Scripture is fundamental. On this point of perspicuity, Luther has Erasmus by the horns. Erasmus says Scripture is not clear on this matter of the freedom of the will, yet he appeals to the church fathers for support. The church fathers base their doctrine of the free-will on Scripture. On the basis of the perspicuity of Scripture, Luther challenges Erasmus to find even one passage that supports his view of free-will. Luther emphasizes that not one can be found.

Luther also attacks Erasmus when he says what one believes concerning the freedom of the will does not matter. Luther sums up Erasmus' position this way: "In a word, what you say comes to this: that you do not think it matters a scrap what any one believes anywhere, as long as the world is at peace." Erasmus says the knowledge of free-will is useless and non-essential. Over against this, Luther says, "then neither God, Christ, Gospel, faith, nor anything else even of Judaism, let alone Christianity, is left!" Positively, Luther says about the importance of the truth: "I hold that a solemn and vital truth, of eternal consequences, is at stake in the discussion." Luther was willing to defend the truth even to death because of its importance as that which is taught in Scripture.

A word must also be said about the differing views of the interpretation of Scripture. Erasmus was not an exegete. He was a great scholar of the languages, but this did not make him an able exegete. Erasmus does not rely on the Word of God of itself, but he turns to the church fathers and to reason for the interpretation of Scripture. In regard to the passage out of Ecclesiasticas which Erasmus uses, Luther says the dispute there is not over the teaching of Scripture, but over human reason. Erasmus generalizes from a particular case, saying that since a passage mentions willing, this must mean a man has a free-will. In this regard, Luther also says that Erasmus "fashions and refashions the words of God as he pleases." Erasmus was concerned not with what God says in His Word, but with what he wanted God to say.

Not only does Erasmus use his own reason to interpret Scripture, but following in the Roman Catholic tradition he goes back to the church fathers. His work is filled with many quotes from the church fathers' interpretation of different passages. The idea is that the church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture. Erasmus goes so far in this that Luther accuses Erasmus of placing the fathers above the inspired apostle Paul.

In contrast to Erasmus, Luther interprets Scripture with Scripture. Seeing the Word of God as inspired by the Holy Spirit, Luther also trusts in the work of the Holy Spirit to interpret that Word. One of the fundamental points of Reformed hermeneutics is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Luther follows this. When Luther deals with a passage, he does not take it out of context as Erasmus does. Instead, he examines the context and checks other passages which use the same words.

Also, Luther does not add figures or devise implications as Erasmus does. But rather, Luther sticks to the simple and plain meaning of Scripture. He says, "Everywhere we should stick to just the simple, natural meaning of the words, as yielded by the rules of grammar and the habits of speech that God has created among men." In the controversy over the bondage of the will, both the formal and material principles of the Reformation were at stake.

Now we must examine some of the important passages for each man. This is a difficult task because they both refer to so many passages. We must content ourselves with looking at those which are fundamental for the main points of the controversy.

Showing the weakness of his view of Scripture, Erasmus begins with a passage from an apocryphal book: Ecclesiasticas 15:14-17. Erasmus uses this passage to show the origin of the free will and that the will continues to be free after the fall.

Following this passage, Erasmus looks at many passages from the Old Testament to prove that man has a free-will. He turns to Genesis 4:6, 7, which records God speaking to Cain after he offered his displeasing sacrifice to God. Verse 7 says, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." Erasmus says that God sets before Cain a reward if he chooses the good. But if he chooses the evil, he will be punished. This implies that Cain has a will which can overcome evil and do the good.

From here, Erasmus looks at different passages using the word "choose." He says Scripture uses the word "choose" because man can freely choose. This is the only way it makes sense.

Erasmus also looks at many passages which use the word "if" in the Old Testament and also the commands of the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah 1:19,20 and 21:12 use the words "if … then." These conditions in Scripture imply that a man can do these things. Deuteronomy 30:14 is an example of a command. In this passage, Israel is commanded to love God with all their heart and soul. This command was given because Moses and the people had it in them to obey. Erasmus comes to these conclusions by implication.

Using a plethora of New Testament texts, Erasmus tries to support the idea of the freedom of the will. Once again, Erasmus appeals to those texts which speak of conditions. John 14:15 says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Also, in John 15:7 we read, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." These passages imply that man is able to fulfill the conditions by his free-will.

Remarkably, Erasmus identifies Paul as "the champion of free choice." Referring to passages in which Paul exhorts and commands, Erasmus says that this implies the ability to obey. An example is I Corinthians 9:24,25: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible." Man is able to obey this command because he has a free-will.

These texts can be placed together because Luther responds to them as a whole. Luther does treat many of these texts separately, but often comes back to the same point. Luther's response to Genesis 4:7 applies to all of the commands and conditions to which Erasmus refers: "Man is shown, not what he can do, but what he ought to do." Similarly, Luther responds to Deuteronomy 30:19: "It is from this passage that I derive my answer to you: that by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do; that is, that he may know sin, not that he may believe that he has any strength." The exhortations and commands of the New Testament given through the apostle Paul are not written to show what we can do, but rather, after the gospel is preached, they encourage those justified and saved to live in the Spirit.

From these passages, Erasmus also taught that man merited salvation by his obedience or a man merited punishment by his disobedience, all of which was based on man's ability according to his free-will. Erasmus jumps from reward to merit. He does this in the conditional phrases of Scripture especially. But Luther says that merit is not proved from reward. God uses rewards in Scripture to exhort us and threaten us so that the godly persevere. Rewards are not that which a man merits.

The heart of the battle of the biblical texts is found in their treatment of passages from the book of Romans, especially Romans 9. Here, Erasmus treats Romans 9 as a passage which seems to oppose the freedom of the will but does not.

Erasmus begins his treatment of Romans 9 by considering the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. He treats this in connection with what Romans 9:18 says, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth." To interpret this passage, Erasmus turns to Jerome, who says, "God hardens when he does not at once punish the sinner and has mercy as soon as he invites repentance by means of afflictions." God's hardening and mercy are the results of what man does. God has mercy "on those who recognize the goodness of God and repent…." Also, this hardening is not something which God does, but something which Pharaoh did by not repenting. God was longsuffering to Pharaoh, not punishing him immediately, during which Pharaoh hardened his heart. God simply gave the occasion for the hardening of his heart. Therefore the blame can be placed on Pharaoh.

Although Erasmus claims to take the literal meaning of the passage, Luther is outraged at this interpretation. Luther objects:

Positively, Luther explains this hardening of the heart of Pharaoh. God does this, therefore Pharaoh's heart is necessarily hardened. But God does not do something which is opposed to the nature of Pharaoh. Pharoah is enslaved to sin. When he hears the word of God through Moses which irritates his evil will, Pharaoh's heart is hardened. Luther explains it this way:

Once again, Luther objects. Luther defends the necessity of consequence to what God decrees. Luther says, "If God foreknows a thing, it necessarily takes place." Therefore, in regard to Jacob and Esau, they did not attain their positions by their own free-will. Romans 9 emphasizes that they were not yet born and that they had not yet done good or evil. Without any works of obedience or disobedience, the one was master and the other was the servant. Jacob was rewarded not on the basis of anything he had done. Jacob was loved and Esau was hated even before the world began. Jacob loved God because God loved him. Therefore the source of salvation is not the free-will of man, but God's eternal decree. Paul is not the great champion of the freedom of the will.

In defense of the literal meaning of Romans 9:21-23, Luther shows that these verses oppose free-will as well. Luther examines the passage in the context of what Paul is saying. The emphasis in the earlier verses is not man, but what God does. He is sovereign in salvation. Here also, the emphasis is the potter. God is sovereign, almighty, and free. Man is enslaved to sin and acts out of necessity according to all God decrees. Luther shows that this is the emphasis of Romans 9 with sound exegetical work.

After refuting the texts to which Erasmus refers, Luther continues to show that Scripture denies the freedom of the will and teaches the sovereignty of God in salvation. He begins with Romans 1:18 which says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Luther says this means all men are ungodly and are unrighteous. Therefore, all deserve the wrath of God. The best a man can do is evil. Referring to Romans 3:9, Luther proves the same thing. Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. They will and do nothing but evil. Man has no power to seek after good because there is none that doeth good (Ps. 14:3). Therefore, men are "ignorant of and despise God! Here is unbelief, disobedience, sacrilege, blasphemy towards God, cruelty and mercilessness towards one's neighbors and love of self in all things of God and man." Luther's conclusion to the matter is this: man is enslaved to sin.

Man cannot obtain salvation by his works. Romans 3:20 says that by the works of the law no man can be justified in God's sight. It is impossible for a man to merit salvation by his works. Salvation must be the sovereign work of God.

Luther thunders against free-will in connection with Romans 3:21-16 which proclaims salvation by grace alone through faith.58 Free-will is opposed to faith. These are two different ways of salvation. Luther shows that a man cannot be saved by his works, therefore it must be by faith in Jesus Christ. Justification is free, of grace, and without works because man possesses no worthiness for it.

Finally, we notice that Luther points out the comprehensive terms of the apostle Paul to show that there is no free-will in man. All are sinners. There is none that is righteous, and none that doeth good. Paul uses many others also. Therefore, justification and salvation are without works and without the law.

Over against the idea of free-will stands the clear teaching of Scripture. Luther clearly exegetes God's Word to show this. In summary, the truth of predestination denies the free-will of man. Because salvation is by grace and faith, salvation is not by works. Faith and grace are of no avail if salvation is by the works of man. Also, the only thing the law works is wrath. The law displays the unworthiness, sinfulness, and guilt of man. As children of Adam we can do no good. Luther argues along these lines to show that a free-will does not exist in man. Salvation is by grace alone.

Luther is not interested in abstract theological concepts. He does not take up this debate with Erasmus on a purely intellectual level. The main issue is salvation: how does God save? Luther himself defines the issue on which the debate hinges:

So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation…. This is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us.

Luther finds it necessary to investigate from Scripture what ability the will of man has and how this is related to God and His grace. If one does not know this, he does not know Christianity. Luther brings this against Erasmus because he shows no interest in the truth regarding how it is that some are saved.

Although the broad issue of the debate is how God saves, the specific issue is the sovereignty of God in salvation. The main issue for Luther is that man does not have a free-will by which he merits eternal life, but God sovereignly saves those whom He has chosen.

Luther is pursuing the question, "Is God, God?" This means, is God the omnipotent who reigns over all and who sovereignly saves, or does He depend on man? If God depends on man for anything, then He is not God. Therefore Luther asks the question of himself: Who will try to reform his life, believe, and love God? His answer, "Nobody." No man can do this of himself. He needs God. "The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed." Luther defends this truth so vigorously because it is the heart of the gospel. God is the sovereign God of salvation. If salvation depends on the works of man, he cannot be saved.

Certain implications necessarily follow from the views of salvation defended by both men. First, we must consider the implications which show the falsehood of Erasmus' view of salvation.

When Erasmus speaks of merit, he is really speaking as a Pelagian. This was offensive to Erasmus because he specifically claimed that he was not a Pelagian. But Luther rightly points out that Erasmus says man merits salvation. According to the idea of merit, man performs an act separate from God, which act is the basis of salvation. He deserves a reward. This is opposed to grace. Therefore, if merit is at all involved, man saves himself. This makes Erasmus no different from the Pelagians except that the Pelagians are honest. Pelagians honestly confess that man merits eternal life. Erasmus tries to give the appearance that he is against the Pelagians although he really is a Pelagian. Packer and Johnston make this analysis:

Another implication of the synergistic view of salvation held to by Erasmus is that God is not God. Because salvation depends upon the free-will of man according to Erasmus, man ascribes divinity to himself. God is not God because He depends upon man. Man himself determines whether or not he will be saved. Therefore the study of soteriology is not the study of what God does in salvation, but soteriology is a study of what man does with God to deserve eternal life.

This means God's grace is not irresistible, but man can reject the grace of God. Man then has more power than God. God watches passively to see what man will do.

Finally, a serious implication of the view of Erasmus is that he denies salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone. In his Diatribe, Erasmus rarely mentions Jesus Christ. This shows something is wrong. This does follow from what Erasmus says. The emphasis for Erasmus is what man must do to be saved and not on what God has done in Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus Christ is not the only way of salvation and is not that important.

Over against the implications of Erasmus' view are the orthodox implications of Luther's view. God is sovereign in salvation. God elects His people, He sent Jesus Christ, and reveals Jesus Christ only to His people. It is God who turns the enslaved wills of His people so that they seek after Him. Salvation does not depend upon the work of man in any sense.

The basis of salvation is Jesus Christ alone. Because man is enslaved to sin, He must be turned from that sin. He must be saved from that sin through the satisfaction of the justice of God. A man needs the work of Jesus Christ on the cross to be saved. A man needs the new life of Jesus Christ in order to inherit eternal life. The merits of man do not save because he merits nothing with God. A man needs the merits of Jesus Christ for eternal life. A man needs faith by which he is united to Christ.

The source of this salvation is election. God saves only those whom He elects. Those who receive that new life of Christ are those whom God has chosen. God is sovereign in salvation.

Because God is sovereign in salvation, His grace cannot be resisted. Erasmus says that the reason some do not believe is because they reject the grace which God has given to them. Luther implies that God does not show grace to all men. Instead, He saves and shows favor only to those who are His children. In them, God of necessity, efficaciously accomplishes His purpose.

Because man cannot merit eternal life, saving faith is not a work of man by which he merits anything with God. Works do not justify a man. Salvation is the work of God alone in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. Faith is a gift of God whereby we are united to Jesus Christ and receive the new life found in Him. Even the knowledge and confidence as the activity of faith are the gifts of faith.

Finally, only with this view of salvation that God is sovereign can a man have comfort that he will be saved. Because God is sovereign in salvation and because His counsel is immutable, we cannot fall from the grace of God. He preserves those who are His children. Erasmus could not have this comfort because he held that man determines his own salvation.

Although this controversy happened almost five hundred years ago, it is significant for the church today. The error of "semi-Pelagianism" is still alive in the church today. Much of the church world sides with Erasmus today, even among those who claim to be "Reformed." If a "Reformed" or Lutheran church denies what Luther says and sides with Erasmus, they despise the reformation of the church in the sixteenth century. They might as well go back to the Roman Catholic Church.

This controversy is important today because many deny that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. A man can worship heathen gods and be saved. This follows from making works the basis of salvation. Over against this error, Martin Luther proclaimed the sovereignty of God in salvation. He proclaimed Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation. We must do the same.

The error of Pelagianism attacks the church in many different forms. We have seen that in the history of the Protestant Reformed Churches. The sovereignty of God in salvation has been attacked by the errors of common grace and a conditional covenant. Over against these errors, some in the church world have remained steadfast by the grace of God. God does not love all. Nor does He show favor to all men in the preaching of gospel. Erasmus himself said that God showed grace to all men and God does not hate any man. The Arminians said the same thing at the time of the Synod of Dordt. Yet, men who defend common grace claim to be Reformed. They are not.

Also, in this synergistic view of salvation, we see the principles of the bilateral, conditional covenant view which is in many "Reformed" churches. If God and man work together in salvation, then the covenant must be a pact in which both God and man must hold up each one's end of the agreement. Over against this we must proclaim the sovereignty of God in salvation especially in regard to the covenant. The covenant is not conditional and bilateral. God works unconditionally and unilaterally in the covenant of grace.

Finally, we must apply the truth of the sovereignty of God defended by Luther to ourselves. We could say there is a Pelagian in all of us. We know God sovereignly saves, but we often show by our practice that we proudly want to sneak a few of our works in the back door. We must depend upon God for all things.

May this truth which Martin Luther defended, the truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation, be preserved in the church.

If I give you a billion dollars, what good is it if you never use it and put it in your attic? I have the ability to reject God's supernatural gift of faith, as well.

I wouldn't be dumb enough to reject your gift. It would be, effectively, no decision at all. Likewise, God knows how to offer the "equivalent" of that gift, which He already knows I must accept. He might offer it in different ways to different people, but for the elect, I don't think there is a real or meaningful "Yes-No" type of decision.

I believe that God is love and you believe that God forces people against their will to be dragged into "heaven", which would turn into a veritable hell for people who didn't want to be there...

Didn't we just cover this? God doesn't drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven. The real estate is much too valuable to waste on such people. Rather, God transforms the minds of His elect to want to go to heaven. Isn't Paul the perfect example?

Satan didn't quote Scripture to Eve, and Satan didn't "misquote" Scriptures to Jesus. The point is that anyone can take a text of Scripture and make it say something totally different then its context.

satan says to Eve:

Gen. 3:1 : Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

satan is misquoting God when He said:

Gen. 2:16-17 : 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

satan knew DAMN well :) what God said, so this was an intentional misquote. ... In the desert, satan says:

Matt. 4:6 : 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

satan is misquoting from:

Ps. 91:11-12 : 11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; 12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

---------------

God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world.

So finally, you do admit that you put a man-created duty on God for a non-decreed wish. This vindicates what I have been saying all along on this.

IF man CANNOT choose the good without ANY of God's graces - and God does NOT give ANY grace, then exactly how is that just?

I'm sure it doesn't match your sense of justice. God owes you an apology.

If God says "FK, you can't get into heaven unless you benchpress 10,000 pounds by yourself", and He didn't spot you, would you consider God to be a fair and just God?

Yes, of course. I didn't create heaven, and I have no moral claim to live there from myself. In addition, I am against illegal immigration. You, OTOH, appear to be in full support of illegal immigration as you place a duty on God to offer to let everyone in. God's sovereignty says that He can decide who will go to heaven. You reject that and place a duty on Him to measure up to your sense of justice.

If God acts this way, He no longer fits the human definition of "just". We must call Him something else.

No, we can still call him "Just". We just can't call Him subject to man's idea of justice.

FK: "I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone."

But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING.

No, just the opposite. In the PRACTICAL world, I experience everything just as you believe is real. Intellectually, I know what is really going on, but I don't experience it, practically. My experience in the real world is the same as yours, making choices.

The Bible has authority because it has been RECOGNIZED as the part of the Word of God by the CHURCH! Otherwise, it would just be another historical book. The Church speaks for Bible's authority, since the Church wrote it!

This was my understanding of your belief. But I don't understand why you still call it "God's word". It really isn't in your view, is it? The Church wrote it, so the Church owns it. The Church then declares it to be correct. The Church seems to take on the role of God's ghostwriter, doesn't it? It's more like "The Holy Bible...... by God ... with the Roman Catholic Church."

I only say that the hierarchy is legitimate interpreters when heresy is being taught.

That means always. Heresy is defined as anything that disagrees with the Church. I'm sure that everyone is a legitimate interpreter AS LONG AS he agrees with the Church. I know you've said you have some freedom on minor issues, but really, on anything of real importance, your view is that only the Church knows best, only your men are good enough, as I said.

IF the bible was meant to be argued over verses, WHO would make the decision on who was correct?

Whoever has the strongest argument based on the most salient scripture should be correct. I don't need a man to declare that for me.

You tell me what is the intention of God here? One Church or many opposing churches. The fact of the matter is that man can come to the bible with many weird ideas and "prove" them from verses found within.

I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct; OR, is it better to have several independent churches, some of which are likely corrupt, but some of which are likely practicing the truth (at least some are saved). I admit I cannot give you an unbiased answer. :)

In either event, the reality is that there are going to be dissensions and separations among the faithful. I would not say absolutely that this is a bad thing. Unity would be best (God's non-decreed will), but if that cannot be had, I would not favor something like coerced faith in the name of unity, over separation. (And I don't think you're in favor of coerced faith :)

Can you say unequivocally that God MEANT Genesis 1-3 to be taken literally? We DO NOT know that from the Bible ALONE! Nowhere does it say that it is NOT allegorical.

I just told you in the other post that I do not say that. I told you that my current belief is in a young earth. I am happy to listen to Biblically supported arguments to the contrary, and I might change my view. Since I do not see persuasive evidence that it is allegory, for now I will take Genesis at face value.

How do you know that a new theological viewpoint doesn't take you FURTHER from Christ's Truth?

It is a matter of discernment. If I have enough, then I will see it, if not, then I will wander aimlessly. I believe that discernment is a gift that strengthens through sanctification.

"Eternal life" is Christ's abiding life within us even NOW, incompletely and conditionally given.

I know you wrote this sentence, but did you read it? :) "Eternal" means incomplete and conditional??? That can only speak for itself.

Heaven is union with Christ, brother! I cannot believe this is new to you! What part of this don't you get?

The part that stands John 3:16 on its ear! :) To me, "eternal life" means eternal life in heaven in the presence of and in communion with, God. "Eternal death" means eternal life in hell, permanently away from God. You appear to be saying that "eternal" means "maybe". However, the more I think about it, this may be the best "out" you have in Catholicism. If the promise in John 3:16 was actually true, and since it is in the present tense, then that would concretely confirm the ideas of salvation before death, and assurance while alive. Such ideas must be eliminated. So, if "eternal" can be changed to mean "not eternal, but fleeting", then that kills two birds with one stone. Whoever thought it up, I do give him credit.

The word "justice" means the same thing to God and to us.

Really??? How about the word "love"? Does that mean the same thing to God as it does to man? You're giving us corporeals a wee bit too much credit I think. :)

How exactly does man persevere if God does everything? Don't you mean "God perseveres"?

Yes, the elect of men persevere by God acting through them. So, your correction is better.

FK: "I think I'm on fairly safe ground in saying that no Catholic baby has a punched ticket into heaven upon infant baptism."

You are wrong. Our salvation ABSOLTULEY DEPENDS on the presence of sanctifying grace within us to enter heaven. Without this, we cannot enter heaven. It is a freely given gift by God, as a seed planted in the ground, that bears fruit later in the infant's life.

Huh? Could you read what I said again? If I am still wrong, then I am not fairly safe, but fairly lost. :) You are now espousing a OSAS model from infant baptism. For you, this is a bit.... irregular. :)

Sanctifying grace, while present, guarantees heaven to those who have it. This presence does not necessarily remain with us once we receive it at Baptism.

LOL! So to those who have it, sanctifying grace is really, truly a "guarantee" of NOTHING. It is a temporary condition, that when lost, may or may not be restored. You call that a "guarantee"? When you go to get your car fixed, and the shop owner gives you a "guarantee" of his work, is this the sense in which you accept it? The work is guaranteed, until the car breaks down, and then it is no longer guaranteed, but might be again if you hire the same guy to fix it a second time?

Adam was born with a human nature that had no effects of original sin. ... In addition to this unadulterated humanity, Adam was given the "breath of God", the Spirit. This is something that exceeds the natural world. God's Spirit was not given to any other material creation.

Except ........., or as some good Catholics believe also .........., or if you're Orthodox perhaps even ......... :)

FK: "My argument is that it was necessary, to satisfy His own rules."

Love is not necessary. Love is freely given, not something required.

I wasn't referring to His rules of love, but His rules of His justice. Man is sinful, making him wholly unfit for heaven. All men. A price must be paid in atonement. This is God's way as we see throughout the OT. Man does not have the required price, only God does. So He decides to pay it Himself out of love for His creation. But what is this price exactly? What would be enough to "cover" the debt? My argument was that if the true answer was a finger snap or a prayer, AND He decided to die on the cross anyway, then that would have been unnecessary suicide. That would not have been true love at all.

My position is that therefore, the God-determined price, according to His justice, must have been the death of Christ on the cross. That makes the sacrifice real, and fully selfless. It was necessary and He did it because if He did not do it, none of us are saved.

I would be interested in finding out what other's teaching/belief is about the Saints departed from this existence

Apostolic Churches teach that the souls are alive and conscious after physical death. They even "feel" and "see" and "hear" and understand our prayers, but it is not clear how -- given that modern science has established that our senses are intimately tied to our bodies' sense preceptors.

No body, no senses! But, maybe, just maybe, this is not entirely true. However, Protestants and Jews believe that the souls are "asleep," so there is no sense talking to them, praying to them, or for them. In other words, they are "dead."

Now, we are all Christians in our hearts and our God is a God of life not death. Through His own sacrifice in Flesh, He conquered death, our last enemy, and made it possible for us to live even after we physically die. If we do not believe that the souls are alive, we do not believe in afer-life, the hope that made Christianity's appeal so strong.

Roman documents show that Romans considered Christianity a "dangerous superstition" and that its major appeal was the idea that Christians "cannot die."

Just because we don't see radio waves or understand why gravity exists does not mean they don't or can't. We are not the final arbiters of what is real and what is not, or what is possible and what is not.

Whether valid or not, it certainly cannot hurt to pray for the souls of the departed or to ask for their intercession through prayer on our behalf. The intention is what really counts.

I wouldn't be dumb enough to reject your gift. It would be, effectively, no decision at all.

Yes, between humans, one billion dollars is a no-brainer. But in God's offer, it is based on FAITH! When if I offered you one billion dollars conditionally? Then, you'd have to trust me. Then, the analogy becomes more like the decision we make with God. It is NOT a no-brainer, because the reward is not clearly given here. It is based on faith and trusting that God will reward us for our response - which often calls for us to refute the present "good" things in life.

God transforms the minds of His elect to want to go to heaven. Isn't Paul the perfect example?

Yes, but He does it without destroying a man's free will. He doesn't erase our will, He inclines it towards Him. Saul already had zeal for God, it was just misdirected in defending the Old, rather than the New Covenant. Saul certainly did not have to be converted from wickedness. He tells us that HE HIMSELF was "perfect in the Law".

Regarding Satan - he is still using the Scriptures against Jesus. One can take Scriptures and twist it, whether we twist the words or the meaning - it's the same thing...I fail to see your distinction.

I wrote :God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world.

You responded : So finally, you do admit that you put a man-created duty on God for a non-decreed wish. This vindicates what I have been saying all along on this.

Hardly. Slow down a second. Is God righteous or not? IF He is, then HE binds Himself to promises made. IF He is righteous, He does not break promises. Thus, where is this "man-created" duty? GOD gave us His promise! Our hope is based on this assumption. Just because Jesus rose from the dead doesn't mean YOU will - UNLESS we rely on God's righteousness and promises. What is so difficult about this?

I'm sure it doesn't match your sense of justice. God owes you an apology.

Sorry if I call good - good and evil - evil. From what you are saying, you call evil - good, good - evil, justice - injustice; mercy - harshness. Etc. When we define God's attributes, we use words to define the meaning of "justice". There is an implied meaning to those letters put together to spell "justice"...There is a concept. And expecting someone to do something he cannot is NOT part of that concept! That is injustice in ANYONE'S definition. To you, then, God should be called "unjust", using human definition.

When we say that "God's ways are not our ways", it doesn't mean that God defines justice differently! It means His EXTENT of justice is different. He GOES BEYOND our definition - NOT FALL SHORT! He gives mercy to those who we do not believe deserve it. You think God is LESS than humanly just? That is exactly what you are saying. God does not even live up to human justice. Wow... Where do Protestants come up with this stuff?

Oh boy. I live only a few miles from the Mexican border. We see them alright. Don't go there. Regarding God, we DO have a "claim", because God made a promise. The Untied States didn't make a promise to illegals. Knowing that God is righteous, knowing that God has told us if we respond to him positively, He would reward us, then He does "owe" us in a secondary sense. Not strictly, but He binds Himself, being that God is righteous. Or are you again going to say that God does not even live up to human standards of righteousness?

First, God is not just, now God is not righteous? What do they teach you at that Sunday school?

I wrote But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING.

You responded No, just the opposite. In the PRACTICAL world, I experience everything just as you believe is real. Intellectually, I know what is really going on, but I don't experience it, practically.

LOL! Read that last sentence again. Are you some sort of disembodied person, separated from your body? Perhaps your paradigm is incorrect? Are you living in the Matrix? Again, do you think God is "tricking" us?

This was my understanding of your belief. But I don't understand why you still call it "God's word". It really isn't in your view, is it? The Church wrote it, so the Church owns it.

Men of the Church wrote it inspired by God. Of course it is God's Word. That is our faith. I believe it based on the word of the Church. The Church verifies its source because it witnessed the Christ. Unless you think they made the whole thing up. You, on the other hand, believe the Bible is God's word because...God's word is the bible because...the Bible is God's word...and the vicious circle continues...

The Church seems to take on the role of God's ghostwriter, doesn't it? It's more like "The Holy Bible...... by God ... with the Roman Catholic Church."

LOL! I never thought of it that way. That's a fair analysis, I guess, except you could drop the "Roman" from your statement... God DID form the Church FIRST. God DID task this Church to spread the Word - whether by oral word or written letter or by deed.

I'm sure that everyone is a legitimate interpreter AS LONG AS he agrees with the Church. I know you've said you have some freedom on minor issues, but really, on anything of real importance, your view is that only the Church knows best, only your men are good enough, as I said.

Yes. That's the way God planned it. Only they have the power to bind and loosen, not every individual. Otherwise, how is the faith supposed to remain ONE?

Whoever has the strongest argument based on the most salient scripture should be correct. I don't need a man to declare that for me.

That is not the smartest thing you have written over the course of our discussions(that is the nicest way I can say it). So I guess man determines the revelation of God, now? Is Christianity a revealed religion, or a philosophical argument? You are basically giving credence to Relativism - every good opinion is as good as another. Every nut case with a bible can decide for himself the revelation of God? Next, you'll be crowning the god of human reason... This is exactly the problem the Church has been fighting since the "Enlightenment" when such men as Kant came along and placed human reason above even God. Utterly ridiculous.

Utterly corrupt? Please. The lengths Protestants go to villify the Church so as to assuage their guilty conscience on leaving or remaining outside the Church established by Christ. "well, it's corrupt, God, you know, that time when a priest stole some money, well, the whole Church MUST be false...". At what point in the Old Testament did God create a new "people"? Did He do away with them, despite their "corruptness"? No, God's people, the Church, will always continue to be His people, no matter its outer form.

Since I do not see persuasive evidence that it is allegory, for now I will take Genesis at face value.

Explain the different creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. They are not in the same order. Or did God create the universe twice in two different ways?

Regards

And if you combine that analysis with the memory of the Church that describes Mary finishing her days under the care of John and Peter, in the company of nuns who she taught chastity, you reach the same conclusion the Church has always taught, that she honored her childhood vows of virginity all her life.

If Mary had taken a childhood vow of virginity for all her life, then why in the universe would she have agreed to become betrothed? As you well know, this was before the angel appeared to her. In fact, as I think about it, if she entered into a betrothal with the full intention of remaining a virgin, then she would have been guilty of the sin of fraud.

For example, given the frequency of reconstituted families after a divorce, note how often "brother" means really "half-brother" in modern American usage. Just as the expansive usage of "brother" common in the East seems lacking in recognition of direct brothers to you, the pedantic "This is John my brother, and Jake my half brother from mom's first marriage, and Jim my half brother from dad's first marriage" that you apparently would insist upon in modern America sounds unnecessarily offputting to many today.

Well, the term "half-brother" is no problem to me because that is exactly the relationship I claim between Jesus and his "siblings". There is still common blood. If I had one, I would think of my half-brother as just "my brother". The interesting relationship in today's world is step-siblings. (I actually expected that to come up as an explanation from someone, but it didn't.) I don't have any step-siblings either, but I would guess that in most cases, the connection would be less than that of a blood relative. It is my impression that blood connections were extremely important in those days, as they are today.

[Re: the world without scripture] There would be more heresy, yes. But we have the promise of Christ that the Church will prevail and that Christ is with Peter when he teaches others (Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:32). So the Church would prevail even without the scripture, as the scripture itself tells us.

There have been comments saying that the Bible was compiled for the reason of thwarting heretical sects such as Gnosticism. How would you define "prevail" without scripture? Today, and if scripture never existed, do you think that global Church membership would be somewhat less, or drastically less? I would guess the latter for any faith that believed in scripture.

Regarding your back-and-forth about us "earning" our salvation.

Either you don't read everything we say or you don't understand it, FK. It's not that difficult. Everything comes from God, including our faith and our salvation. God does not need us to cooperate with Him, but He wants us to do so (for a good reason, trust me), which is why He gives us the freedom to either accept His merciful offers of grace or to reject them.

Acceptance of His grace does not "earn" you points for salvation. Your salvation is not a simple one-moment event. One Orthodox priest once said it's like getting a visa to America and all you have is a dinghy at the coast of France (and a whole Atlantic Ocean in between)! You have been given the visa and you have a dinghy, but it's up to you to undertake the voyage; you must want it, and you must initiate it.

There will be tribulations and temptations and storms and obstacles that you must overcome to get there, and the only way you will accomplish this is if you persevere to the end, even if you perish trying. Living or dying is not an issue here; nor is it important as far as our salvation is concerned.

What counts is that you, for the love of God, and not because He coerced you or brainwashed you or because He attached a tractor beam to your forehead, stay the course and follow Christ's footsteps -- forgive others, repent, be merciful, and above all trust that whatever happens will be merciful and just, and what you really "deserved" in God's eyes.

If you can do that, you can also calmly and without any further speculation simply say "Thy will be done" and be done with it. You must be clear and without any doubt that whatever obstacles you encounter in good faith will not count against you; they will not earn you points; they will only bring you closer to God.

Our sub deacon the other day said his grandmother told him "first the cross then the crown." He said "it bothered him" to hear that when he was younger, but now he realizes how much she knew her theology. :)

Accepting Christ does not stop the world around you. You still have to deal with the world and everything it dishes out to you. Just because you are "saved" does not mean you now "rate" special treatment. How many Christians say "How could this happen to me? I go to Church, I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior and yet these things happen to me..."

Let me tell you, getting a visa for America for many people is a "salvation." Getting there sometimes requires a lot more faith and perseverance than you think.

Ultimately, what matters is not whether we "succeed" or not, but whether we remain Christ-like in our hearts. No one is immortal, so we are all slaves to death whether we believe or not. The only "guarantee" we have is our faith that Christ can unshackle us from it.

Success is a relative term. It can be measured not with how much you have or make but how happy you are. And in Christ we are greatful for every day, for everything even if it is small and meager; when we get sick we don't complain "how can this happen to me...' but thank the Lord for all the health you have been given until now, or thank Him that you are blessed enough to have the means to be healed with.

If you can concentrate on that, intellectual discussions on whether we earn or salvation points or not become meanignless chatter.

We understand God's grace differently, but without us being the object of that grace, being able to accept it freely, or freely cooperating with God in that grace, makes grace meaningless too. So, salvation does depend on our being here to receive it. Otherwise, what's the point? No man, no grace. :)

Are there not tons of things in normal life that we would consider to be fully earned, even though they would fit your definition of being a secondary cause? When a baseball player hits a home run, would you call that "secondary" because technically, he couldn't have done it without the owner hiring him, and the manager putting him in the lineup?

In no human example can we compare to God and man completely. This is because God has given us EVERY gift. Both natural and supernatural. He has given us our talents that we consider ingrained, as well as the supernatural gifts of faith, hope and love. Thus, God is ALWAYS the First Cause. But He allows ALL of His creation to be Secondary Causes of their own actions. Thus, plants grow of their own accord, under God's laws of nature. Animals procreate and move on their own accord. All the while, though, they are under God's "indirect" guidance and Providence. When need be, I would presume that God would ensure that an animal was in the right place at the right time if it suited God's plan of salvation for mankind.

With man, we are dealing with a creature with intellect and free will. God continues to allow His creature to be a secondary cause. Thus, man eats or sleeps when it suits him. However, this does not take away from God as the First Cause. He is always indirectly involved because He gave man all of his abilities - AND can intervene when it suits His purpose. Because man always has the choice to do "x" or "y", free choice remains. God does not take that away, but He does make "x" look as the best choice - and God foresees that man will choose "x". This doesn't take away man's free will AND God's will was done. Thus, we can say that man did "x", though we also say that man cannot brag, because God "moved" him to choose "x", making it more to the man's desire. Man is given credit by God for choosing "x", he is given merit, since He cooperated with God's will. Merit is given to man because and ONLY because God binds HIMSELF to pay man a reward for his obedience - which God enables but not without the possibility of man's rejection.

Regards

I wrote "Eternal life" is Christ's abiding life within us even NOW, incompletely and conditionally given.

To further explain. "Eternal Life" is not a status or a condition given to us. It is an Object, a Person, Jesus Christ, who comes to abide within us if we are born anew or obey the Commandments. This "Eternal Life" in John is synonymous with "Kingdom of Heaven" in the Synoptics. It is Christ's presence within the grace-filled man. It does not follow that "Eternal Life" will remain within us ETERNALLY! A man can disinherit himself from the Kingdom of Heaven - which casts out "Eternal Life" that was formerly residing within us. We ALWAYS have the ability to reject the Spirit while here on earth. "Eternal Life" in John's Gospel refers to a Person, not a status. Do you think Catholics believe that if they go to Communion (eat Christ's Body) that they are guaranteed heaven? That is what your interpretation of John 6 would tell us... I do grant you that context is important, and that sometimes, eternal life refers to life in heaven. But usually, John means the Person of Christ.

"eternal life" means eternal life in heaven in the presence of and in communion with, God.

Jesus DEFINES Eternal life : "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3

That is the message of John's Gospel. To believe that Christ is God's messenger. HE is life eternal. He is not a status! In some instances, Paul talks about eternal life as you mention, but he also qualifies this by saying we can become disinherited by our actions. So even in Paul's case, eternal life is not guaranteed until after death.

How about the word "love"? Does that mean the same thing to God as it does to man? You're giving us corporeals a wee bit too much credit I think. :)

Our definitions are the same. It is our execution that is lacking. God taught us what love was through the death of His only Son. We "know" what love is. The problem is putting it into action.

Yes, the elect of men persevere by God acting through them. So, your correction is better.

So when Jesus tells us to be awake, to persevere, He really is talking to the Father? I disagree. God expects MAN to persevere by using the grace God gives men in each situation. God is not persevering through men. That is ridiculous - God judges MAN. We don't judge God for His perseverance through men.

If I am still wrong, then I am not fairly safe, but fairly lost. :) You are now espousing a OSAS model from infant baptism. For you, this is a bit.... irregular. :)

A baby has his "ticket punched" as a result of infant baptism because he has no stain of sin remaining. He has received sanctifying grace, and has no personal sin. What would keep him out of heaven, FK? Original sin and personal sin keep us out of heaven. A baby has had the former removed and doesn't have the latter. I don't see this a problem. Of course, we are presuming that the infant subsequently dies. Once a child commits mortal sin, all bets are off on this "ticket being punched".

So to those who have it, sanctifying grace is really, truly a "guarantee" of NOTHING. It is a temporary condition, that when lost, may or may not be restored. You call that a "guarantee"? When you go to get your car fixed, and the shop owner gives you a "guarantee" of his work, is this the sense in which you accept it? The work is guaranteed, until the car breaks down, and then it is no longer guaranteed, but might be again if you hire the same guy to fix it a second time?

A guarantee doesn't guarantee the problem will not re-occur. It means that IF it DOES, they will fix it for free! How can a human shop owner "guarantee" that a car will not break? The sacrament of Confession is our guarantee for us when we sin after Baptism. We call upon the work of Christ to free us from our self-imposed sin (not authored by God). Just because we have been Baptized doesn't guarantee we won't sin - but we have a guarantee that we can get fixed. Again, I don't see a problem here.

Man is sinful, making him wholly unfit for heaven. All men. A price must be paid in atonement. This is God's way as we see throughout the OT. Man does not have the required price, only God does.

So who does God pay?

I disagree with this concept of "Atonement", that God owes something to someone as to ransom man from something, although it is not necessarily a false belief, since some Church Fathers have held it. I realize that Paul uses this in comparison to Hebrew sacrifices, which discuss man atoning for sins through sacrifice. But God? Who does God owe anything to? I think this is a misinterpretation of the bible and has led to many problems in our relationship with God. It tends to cause us to forget that God is Love and rather focus on God as being Just. Of course, this is true, but God is Mercy and Love first, as James and John say. God sent His Son to die on the cross to show us His love for mankind, not because He was forced to out of some debt. Who can make God pay them anything? Even Satan cannot. The Catholic paradigm is that God is Love and Mercy first.

Regards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.